VEP-based acuity assessment in low vision

PurposeObjective assessment of visual acuity (VA) is possible with VEP methodology, but established with sufficient precision only for vision better than about 1.0 logMAR. We here explore whether this can be extended down to 2.0 logMAR, highly desirable for low-vision evaluations.MethodsBased on the stepwise sweep algorithm (Bach et al. in Br J Ophthalmol 92:396–403, 2008) VEPs to monocular steady-state brief onset pattern stimulation (7.5-Hz checkerboards, 40% contrast, 40 ms on, 93 ms off) were recorded for eight different check sizes, from 0.5° to 9.0°, for two runs with three occipital electrodes in a Laplace-approximating montage. We examined 22 visually normal participants where acuity was reduced to ≈ 2.0 logMAR with frosted transparencies. With the established heuristic algorithm the “VEP acuity” was extracted and compared to psychophysical VA, both obtained at 57 cm distance.ResultsIn 20 of the 22 participants with artificially reduced acuity the automatic analysis indicated a valid result (1.80 logMAR on average) in at least one of the two runs. 95% test–retest limits of agreement on average were ± 0.09 logMAR for psychophysical, and ± 0.21 logMAR for VEP-derived acuity. For 15 participants we obtained results in both runs and averaged them. In 12 of these 15 the low-acuity results stayed within the 95% confidence interval (± 0.3 logMAR) as established by Bach et al. (2008).ConclusionsThe fully automated analysis yielded good agreement of psychophysical and electrophysiological VAs in 12 of 15 cases (80%) in the low-vision range down to 2.0 logMAR. This encourages us to further pursue this methodology and assess its value in patients.

[1]  Michael Bach,et al.  The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-Variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis , 2007, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[2]  K Nakayama,et al.  Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. , 1979, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  Anthony M. Norcia,et al.  Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP , 1989, Vision Research.

[4]  M. Bach,et al.  The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited , 2010, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[5]  Yaroslava WennerSven Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment: overestimation in amblyopia , 2014 .

[6]  M. Bach,et al.  The Freiburg Visual Acuity test--automatic measurement of visual acuity. , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  N. N. Available World medical association declaration of Helsinki , 2000, Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine.

[8]  H. Jägle,et al.  Accommodation limits induced optical defocus in defocus experiments , 2010, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[9]  M Bach,et al.  Contrast adaptation in human retina and cortex. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  Anthony M. Norcia,et al.  Digital Filtering and Robust Regression Techniques for Estimating Sensory Thresholds from the Evoked Potential , 1985, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[11]  Hans Strasburger,et al.  THE ANALYSIS OF STEADY STATE EVOKED POTENTIALS REVISITED , 1987 .

[12]  M Bach,et al.  Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients , 2008, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[13]  M. Bach,et al.  Do's and don'ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[14]  Gordon N Dutton,et al.  Real-time rapid acuity assessment using VEPs: development and validation of the step VEP technique. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  I. Murray,et al.  Spatio-temporal tuning of VEPs: effect of mode of stimulation , 1999, Vision Research.

[16]  Michael S. Bradnam,et al.  Faster and more sensitive VEP recording in children , 2003, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[17]  Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep PVER , 1997, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[18]  C. Tyler,et al.  PROPERTIES OF LOCALIZED PATTERN EVOKED POTENTIALS * , 1980, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Spatial frequency sweep pattern reversal VER acuity vs Snellen visual acuity: Effect of optical defocus , 1996, Vision Research.

[20]  William H. Ridder,et al.  Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[21]  M. Bach,et al.  On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses , 2004, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[22]  Michael Bach,et al.  ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update) , 2016, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[23]  M. Bach,et al.  Raster-scan cathode-ray tubes for vision research--limits of resolution in space, time and intensity, and some solutions. , 1997, Spatial vision.